A broad review of AF management strategies emphasizing that rate and rhythm control offer comparable clinical outcomes, aligned with recent ACC/AHA/ESC and NICE guidelines.
Supports rate or rhythm control choice in AF per guidelines; leaves open safer, more effective antiarrhythmics.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained tachyarrhythmia and its prevalence is increasing. It is an independent risk factor for stroke and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. AF currently accounts for 1% of NHS expenditure. The management of AF has a broad evidence base and both the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/European Society of Cardiology (ACC/AHA/ESC) and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) have recently published guidelines. Some controversy persists regarding stroke risk stratification and appropriate anticoagulation regimes although a general consensus is now emerging. Rate and rhythm control strategies have been shown to be comparable in terms of clinical outcomes. Current anti-arrhythmic drugs have limited efficacy and significant side-effect profiles. Electrophysiological and surgical interventions have a role in both strategies. This article broadly reviews the evidence for different management strategies in AF and presents a practical approach to treatment in light of the recently published national and international guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jenkins et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: